Offender Victimization And Neutralization

Murphy and Barkworth (2014) discuss how when someone is victimized they can feel like they have lost their place in society, again questioning ‘why me?’. By allowing the victim to participate and have a voice through their Criminal Justice process they feel more satisfied and feel valued as a person, regaining their prior status in the community (Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Victims can also receive an explanation from the offender as to why and what happened the day they were victimized, this helps victims to avoid secondary victimization (in some circumstances) and also process their feelings of self-blame, especially cases of domestic violence and sexual assault (Miller and Heffner, 2013). Doak (2006) conducted a study where youth offenders were face-to-face with their victims and given the opportunity to explain themselves. In this study it was found that the victims were more interested in seeing something positive happen from the interaction, rather than seeking a negative result for the offender. One victim participating stated, “I don’t think punishment is important – it is about putting you back on the straight and narrow” (Doak and O’Mahony, 2006). Not only is having a voice a crucial part of the process for the victim, it gives the offender a chance to apologize and deal with their offence (Doak and O’Mahony,

When it comes to victimless crimes, the real question is how much is profited on the incarceration of non-violent criminals. I would think that people would be in an uproar as their tax money is being wasted on the housing such offenders. Not to mention the tax money spent on law enforcement and the legal system related to enforcing such ridiculous laws. In my observation, law enforcement, in general, spends more time on victimless crimes than they do crimes where there is a real victim. Yes, recreational drug use, prostitution, and Pornography-related crimes are immoral to me and many others, but the government was not created to make moral decisions for us.

Introduction: Crime increases and criminals cannot magically disappear off the earth. Victims will continue to be harassed, assaulted, and emotionally distressed. Family, friends, pastors, and mediators cannot erase the pain a victim suffers from. As a society what can occur in order for justice to be served. The personal changes for the victim justice system to conjoin the criminal justice system which are as follows; general victimology; critical victimology, and victim’s movement.

In addition, there are other factors that influences people’s perception of domestic violence which can impact the victim. Some factor are the effects of domestic violence myths, decision to return, and victim–abuser relationship on victim blame. Domestic violence myths significantly contribute to the victim being blamed for the situation they are in. According to , victims are blamed more when they decide to return to their abuser. This finding suggests that when individuals observe a victim of domestic violence returning to her abuser, they tend to blame her more. They also judge or criticize the victim by minimizing the seriousness of the situation. Not only do personal domestic violence myths impact the victim, but also the communities and their beliefs.

The relationship between offending and victimization is one in the same according to the feminist pathways theory. When researchers compared the status offenses of girls and boys, girls where more likely to receive more stringent punishment for offenses such as; running away, truancy, and being out of control. In the past, girls and young women were treated like criminals and disregarded as victims due to sexual double standards.

When the topic of being victimized is at discussion, it is almost taboo to place the blame of the unjust treatment on the behavior of the victim. However, based on several theories and theoretical perspectives explored in victimology, victimization could certainly be a consequence of the victim’s behavior. The Victim-Precipitation theories directly address this idea stating that the victim may provoke or contribute to the outcome of the crime. In this theory produced by theorist Von Hentig, he states that crime is created through social interaction where both sides contribute. Within this theory there are two separate ideas of precipitation, active and passive. Active precipitation is the concept that the victim provokes, threatens or even attacks first before becoming the victim. Passive precipitation on the other hand is the idea that the victim may display some characteristic that may threaten or encourage the offender. Even the negligence of the victim can be deemed as a contributing factor to becoming victimized. For example, a victim leaves their purse in plain sight of their passenger seat and does not bother to lock their car as they go inside of a department store. Upon returning to their car they realize their purse is gone. Although the victim did not actively provoke the crime, the victim played a role and may have influenced the offender.

Victimology, or the study of victims, especially crime victims, has created new categories of victims that had not been previously noted. What are typically known as “street crimes”, such as rape, robbery, murder, and assault, have been identified as crimes since the biblical era, and the victims of such crimes have long been identifiable (Karmen, 2013). It has been the advances in the field of Victimology, and the questions which have been asked, that have identified new types of crime, and with these new crimes, come new types of victims. As social mores change, and new issues emerge, new categories of crime victims will be identified, and each new group of victims will present a new group of issues, which will need to be addressed. As these new groups of victims are identifies, victimologist will be tasked with asking the questions needed, so that the process of how these groups became victims, and be identified, and studied, in hopes of preventing future victimization.

Syke and Matza state that “much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defense to crimes, in the form of justification for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.” In this case techniques of neutralization seem to be a set of different excuses which are quite fragile. I want to mention some of them, which have the highest possibility of appearance in our particular situation. The first technique is called “Denial of responsibility”. It means that some students will probably argue that “Everybody else is doing it” or that the forces of competition pushes them to act immorally and to accept the offer. Nevertheless, this point can not be used as an official

No one deserves to be battered, beaten, threatened, or in any way victimized by violence or by someone they trust or have a relationship with. While victims and prosecutors advocate often struggle with uncooperative victims, the demand not to prosecute is a challenging factor. Based on manipulation and coercion, there are also conflicting views of this epidemic. Many victims constantly make rational choices concerning their safety and way of living when deciding to prosecute. However, they may be in a better state of mind to decide whether prosecuting will help or hinder. When deciding to prosecute, domestic violence victims may allow themselves, in many cases, to become victimized by succumbing to the belief of personal vulnerability. When

Feminist scholarship has argued that rape ideology encourages and justifies sexual coercion, trivializes sexual violence and demeans and devalues women who have experienced sexual assault. The foundation of this argument is based on women's experiences in patriarchal societies. Due to the fact that

The introduction of Nils Christie’s ‘Ideal victim’ theory (1986: 18) refers to victims of crime who can attain the status of a legitimate victim in the eyes of the public. Christie outlines a criteria which needs to be followed in order to gain this full status of a ‘legitimate victim’. Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ however is not the same as a legal victim and often real victims of crime deviate far from the concept of the ideal victim (Beck & Janbakhsh 2010). This therefore means that using Christie’s ideal victim theory to give someone the title of a legitimate victim is often detrimental. Male victims of sexual assault often deviate from the ‘ideal victim’ criteria set out by Christie, this means that when they encounter the justice system, their experiences are often marginalised or discounted entirely.

The first victimization theory is victim precipitation. According to Dr. Marvin Wolfgang, some people may initiate confrontation, provoking the offender, which could eventually lead to his or her death or injury. (Siegel 78) During his research, he concludes that victims are not entirely innocent or blameless. Consequently, the victim sets into motion their own victimization using confrontation. These precipitations are performed in one of two ways, active or passive. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

Victimisation is the process of learning the various ways that authority figures determine who is a victim, while also educating the person on how to become the victim. Secondary victimisation, also known as double victimisation refers to the way the state responds to victimisation. The states response has the potential to add further burdens on to the victim. Three main components of the criminal justice system will be focused on in this paper; these are enforcement, adjudication and punishment. This paper will identify why the criminal justice system tend to commit secondary victimisation towards the victims. It will also discuss the pains of victimisation and how secondary victimisation has the ability to amplify these pains. The paper will also identify reforms that have been put in place in order to minimise the occurrence of secondary victimisation.

The study of victimology includes several different theories. These theories are victim-based, interactional, societal-based, and ecological. However, before on can begin discussing these theories, the history of the development of victimology theories need to be broached. Although victimology may lack a singular theoretical foundation based within the field itself, it can be said that the field as a whole represents the application of several different theoretical insights that were developed from other disciplines. The first of these other disciplines is criminology. From his work, Vold (1958) was able to provide a framework for categorizing theories that relate to victimology. Within this paper the discussion will begin with the early spiritual explanations, followed by

Methodological problems, in many cases, may skew the results. Retrospection is greatly relied upon in Crime Victimization Studies, and bias may extend itself to these studies as well. Our current interests may derail our accurate account of what actually happened therefore, retrospection may not be completely reliable. One may argue that men underreport victimization of violence by women because it is so emasculating and shaming. Women on the other hand may make false allegations which serves their interest in divorce or child custody hearings. Both of these assumptions are empirically groundless as evidence